News Is Global Warming a Swindle?

[StuMyers]

A new tactic, lose the argument change the subject?

The premise of this thread is that AGW is a fallacy. As a supporter of the AGW theory and a part of the collective consensus you constantly refer to, you should have no problem in rebutting this premise with logic and indisputable facts. So far all you have presented is a dodgy paper by a guy obviously blinded by his bias.

Er, no. Actually, I think you've got a really long road ahead of you, because even if you manage to find evidence that UHI's account for most of the land-based GW, you are going to have a long uphill battle defending the favorable interpretation of the data taken in those UHI areas. I've presented a PR'ed paper. I can present another (Parker, Nature). What can you produce? A free-lance crackpot from Australia?

And, I'm not a part of the consensus. I can speak somewhat authoritatively on some matters of field theory and QGP dynamics. I have no expertise in climate science whatsoever.

 

[StuMyers]

BTW, if I were to claim authority in climate science, then you would be justified in calling the 'argument from authority' fallacy, as I would be trying to impose my expertise in one area, to another.

 

[Art]

BTW, if I were to claim authority in climate science, then you would be justified in calling the 'argument from authority' fallacy, as I would be trying to impose my expertise in one area, to another.

Somewhat off topic but hopefully Evo won't mind a small digression

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth.

You don't necessarily have to be the authority yourself to use the appeal to authority argument. In fact when the appellant is himself the authority this is generally referred to as the Proof By Tenure argument.

 

[StuMyers]

It doesn't imply truth, no. It does however imply that the argument is more likely true, than one given by a non-authority. That's not a fallacy.

I don't think a discussion about the nature of expertise is that far off topic, actually. Not in a political forum.

 

[StuMyers]

I googled your quote to see where it came from. Wikipedia apparently. You seemed to have cut the line short.

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth. However, referencing authority may carry a high enough probability of truth that it be feasible to base decisions on it.

 

[Art]

It doesn't imply truth, no. It does however imply that the argument is more likely true, than one given by a non-authority. That's not a fallacy.

I'd agree with that but it still needs supporting as it is not in itself a 'clincher'

BTW I also looked at this souce http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#they_say

The core of the problem with AGW proponents and I mean the climatologists not you, is that they appear to use nothing but the 'Proof By Tenure' argument to rebut all detractors.

Zooming out for a minute from the micro to the macro from what I've read climatologists rely on their models to tell us with great certainty what is going to happen to the planet's climate in 100 years time and yet they still can't accurately model the previous 100 years or even accurately model short term events such as El Nino so if they have errors in their short term climate forecasting, with the butterfly effect, these would magnify exponentially over a period of 100 years to render any such forecast worse than useless. Do you not agree?

 

[Art]

I googled your quote to see where it came from. Wikipedia apparently. You seemed to have cut the line short.

lol No ulterior motive simply that this is what I was rebutting

BTW, if I were to claim authority in climate science, then you would be justified in calling the 'argument from authority' fallacy, as I would be trying to impose my expertise in one area, to another.

The rest was irrelevant to this.

 

[StuMyers]

Zooming out for a minute from the micro to the macro from what I've read climatologists rely on their models to tell us with great certainty what is going to happen to the planet's climate in 100 years time and yet they still can't accurately model the previous 100 years or even accurately model short term events such as El Nino so if they have errors in their short term climate forecasting, with the butterfly effect, these would magnify exponentially over a period of 100 years to render any such forecast worse than useless. Do you not agree?

I don't know much of anything about meterology. I do recognize the difference between weather and climate. I don't see them claiming any specific micro-climate or weather changes with 'great certainty', but rather general climate trends over longish (to my lifetime) time scales. It's one thing to say 'it will rain next week' and quite another to say 'it will be a rainy season' and yet another entirely to claim 'raininess will increase over the next century'. A lack of accuracy in one, doesn't necessarily imply a similar lack in accuracy in another.

I'm not entirely impressed by the counter-arguments either. They seem more akin to the Phillip-Morris anti-cancer arguments, or the usual contrarian arguments against evolution or an old Earth. I'm not even sure what your position is. Do you deny that the warming is happening? Do you deny that the warming which isn't happening, is being largely caused by humans?

The anti-GW crowd needs to start competing in the usual scientific realm if it wants to be taken seriously. Do research, get papers published. Don't appeal to pop-media and conservative talk show hosts.

 

[Bystander]

Just caught this. Bystander, I think you're being unfair. The paper in question was a recent submission to arxiv, not an article which has undergone any review. The purpose of arxiv is not to be a source of authority, but rather to look at the bleeding edge of what's being researched (this is the context in which it was referenced).

I think you might be underestimating the depth of a modern quantitative science. You're basically describing the level of a lower-division undergraduate. Except on very rare occaisions, graduate-level errors are culled out of papers long before even the review process begins. Just for fun, why not head over to arxiv, and pull a few modern papers at random. See if you think an undergraduate has any REAL hope of finding error, or making some kind of meaningful contribution.

Similar to wikipedia, the arxiv is largely self-editing. You note a mistake, you comment on it. The author then should make a correction, or his work will be removed. I think such a system has it's place, and it's a good one.

You were defending "appeal to authority," and offered three papers as examples of "the depth of a modern quantitative science" and the "authority" you feel "specialists" deserve to be accorded. Your specialists can't label their isotones correctly, and the question the reader is left with at the end of the paper is, "What nuclei were they examining?" "Bleeding edge?" Bleeding the taxpayers. "Unfair?" I can guarantee you there are millions of dollars in diamonds in the Long Island landfill; is it worth anyone's time to mine that landfill? No.

I've "had" to review papers from Oak Ridge. They sat on my desk for a day smelling like week old fish after I'd read them and put together two and three pages of comments and necessary corrections and changes while I made up my mind whether to recommend publication with revisions, or that they be returned to the authors for a complete rewrite; the second case obtained every time.

"Expertise" is NOT self-conferred. Nor is it gained by political acclamation. Nor is it a result of abdication by the scientific community of responsibility to critique work for adherence to established standards for tests of hypotheses. It is not conferred upon people who encyst themselves so narrowly into specialties that they cannot explain their work to the broader community.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)I'm making a measurement right now, where the difference between 2 neighboring data points is of the order of the value of each point. So, my error between consecutive points is about 100%, yet I can average over a large number of points and get a resulting error bar smaller than 1%.(snip)

At the same time, you are not changing your instrumentation a hundred times over the duration of the experiment, nor are you changing the experimental design or apparatus configuration a dozen times, nor are you ignoring the majority of the parameters affecting the measured variable. Whole different statistical problem.

 

[vanesch]

I disagree, you can explain a concept in simple terms, you don't have to teach the person the details about it. Humanino, for example, is excellent at explaining very complex concepts in an easy to understand format. Moonbear is very good at explaining complex neurological processes in laymen's terms.

One of the engineers I work with is very knowledgeable but he cannot simply explain what something does, he wants to explain how it works, and uses very technical terms. He'll talk for 15 minutes explaining MPLS, QOS, COS, latency, jitter, native IP, etc... and the customer has no clue what he's talking about, I'll cut in and say "it means that the workers at your Wisconsin office will be able to work with files that are stored on the computer in California as if they were in California". The customer will say "oh, yes that's what I want".

It's like the old joke about the child asking the parent where he came from. The parent pulls out a medical book and starts explaining biological processes and showing pictures of human reproductive organs. The child looks confused and says "My friend Joey came from Chicago..."

Yes, but you're not explaining the functioning of the technology to the customer when you do that. You're just giving the customer the information he's after, as a customer (which your engineer apparently didn't grasp). Now, your customer then takes your word for it that the answer to his question is the correct one (and if he's a smart customer, will build into the contract something that would hit you in your face if ever you had been telling fairy tales).

There is a difference between the following:
- answering a specific question (of usefulness, risk, cost) to a customer
- giving a colorful mental picture which is an analogy of a complex phenomenon (but which is totally useless to reason on and come to correct conclusions)
- give an explanation of the correct principles of a certain phenomenon.

I think that for the last case, a minimum of knowledge can be required by the audience. Now, there are fields where the "distance" between daily knowledge and the required prerequisites to understand an explanation are shorter than others. This doesn't mean that your audience has to be an expert in the field! As I said, I think that a good physicist in no matter what field has the prerequisites to understand some climatology. That doesn't turn him/her into a climatologist, but he should be able to follow critically an argumentation.

 

[Art]

Gokul43201 If it is, how did you get it so wrong the first time?

I didn't. As I pointed out the AUTHOR, not me, says he looked at the URBAN environment for anomalies to explain the difference. To this end he completely discounted some URBAN station records which he believed to be too HIGH due to special location conditions. He makes no mention whatsoever of looking for similar anomalies in RURAL stations.

Ouch! Looks like you've just shown that you are also ignorant of statistics and probability.

I'm making a measurement right now, where the difference between 2 neighboring data points is of the order of the value of each point. So, my error between consecutive points is about 100%, yet I can average over a large number of points and get a resulting error bar smaller than 1%.

And you?

So following through on your logic if you are correct and variations iron themselves out in large populations doesn't that make the entire raison d'etre for this study redundant??

 

[Art]

I don't know much of anything about meterology. I do recognize the difference between weather and climate. I don't see them claiming any specific micro-climate or weather changes with 'great certainty', but rather general climate trends over longish (to my lifetime) time scales. It's one thing to say 'it will rain next week' and quite another to say 'it will be a rainy season' and yet another entirely to claim 'raininess will increase over the next century'. A lack of accuracy in one, doesn't necessarily imply a similar lack in accuracy in another.

And now a strawman argument I never criticised the models for their inability to forecast the weather next month. El Nino is somewhat more than a transient local weather system

El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a global coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon. Their effect on climate in the southern hemisphere is profound. These effects were first described in 1923 by Sir Gilbert Thomas Walker from whom the Walker circulation, an important aspect of the Pacific ENSO phenomenon, takes its name. The atmospheric signature, the Southern Oscillation (SO) reflects the monthly or seasonal fluctuations in the air pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin. The most recent occurrence of El Niño started in September 2006[2] and lasted until early 2007.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño

 

[Andre]

Talking about fallacies, I'm sure we can identify some here:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0703/0703220.pdf

Abstract

I suggest that a ‘scientific reticence’ is inhibiting communication of a threat of potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.

 

[StuMyers]

You were defending "appeal to authority," and offered three papers as examples of "the depth of a modern quantitative science" and the "authority" you feel "specialists" deserve to be accorded.

The authority WRT non-specialists and the lay public, not to peer groups. The papers were chosen at random from recent submissions, and I didn't even bother to look at them. Respectfully, I think it's one thing to find language or transcription errors and another entirely to find science or math methodology errors. Do you really think that a student at the undergraduate level (or the lay public) has any kind of real chance of regularly finding science/math errors in reviewed (or unreviewed for that matter) papers in a quantitative science? I doubt it. Someone who has not sat in a calculus class (or four) is simply not qualified to critique the math of a monte carlo integration. There's a reason why graduate school lasts seven years these days, and it's not because students are getting stupider.

You might also want to consider the possibility that you've become an expert reviewer in the years (I'm guessing) that you've been reviewing papers. It's possible that you've forgotten what it's like to be a non-expert.

 

[Evo]

Yes, but you're not explaining the functioning of the technology to the customer when you do that. You're just giving the customer the information he's after, as a customer (which your engineer apparently didn't grasp). Now, your customer then takes your word for it that the answer to his question is the correct one (and if he's a smart customer, will build into the contract something that would hit you in your face if ever you had been telling fairy tales).

It's a question of what the person needs to know. The CEO doesn't need to know how the network is designed or how it works, he needs to know what the benefits are. He has IT specialists that will need the technical specs.

I think that for the last case, a minimum of knowledge can be required by the audience. Now, there are fields where the "distance" between daily knowledge and the required prerequisites to understand an explanation are shorter than others. This doesn't mean that your audience has to be an expert in the field! As I said, I think that a good physicist in no matter what field has the prerequisites to understand some climatology. That doesn't turn him/her into a climatologist, but he should be able to follow critically an argumentation.

Completely agree.

 

[StuMyers]

It's a question of what the person needs to know. The CEO doesn't need to know how the network is designed or how it works, he needs to know what the benefits are. He has IT specialists that will need the technical specs.

And how does he know that the benefits you are telling him are true? He really doesn't unless he knows how the network is designed and how it works. He takes your word, as an authority.

All I'm saying (in general) is that when I'm considering some bit of science, X outside my specialty and I need to know the answer, and don't have time or interest to learn enough to be a contributor, I can use a rough 'authority index'.

textbook 99%
PRed journal 98%
old arxiv article 85%
new arxiv article 75%
non-specialist <5% depending on source
non-published, non-specialist who disagees with the first three <<1%

...and doing so is not a fallacy.

 

[Andre]

All I'm saying (in general) is that when I'm considering some bit of science, X outside my specialty and I need to know the answer, and don't have time or interest to learn enough to be a contributor, I can use a rough 'authority index'.

textbook 99%
PRed journal 98%
old arxiv article 85%
new arxiv article 75%
non-specialist <5% depending on source
non-published, non-specialist who disagees with the first three <<1%

...and doing so is not a fallacy.

PRed Journal publications:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html

Authority index: 98%, 98%, 98%, etc,

What says authority?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lindzen+global+warming&btnG=Search&meta=

 

[Andre]

editted out, offensive post removed.

Insults, after fallacies are usually a good indicator of the balance of the debate.

Some more authoroties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Leroux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henk_Tennekes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

 

[ShawnD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Leroux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henk_Tennekes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

Interesting stuff. I'll be sure to read all of it when I have some time

 

[Gokul43201]

Insults, after fallacies are usually a good indicator of the balance of the debate.

Andre, you're not knowingly ignoring the fallacious and otherwise outright nonsensical claims made by "some" on your side of this debate, are you? Besides, I wouldn't judge the balance of the debate based on a few isolated data points.

 

[Andre]

Andre, you're not knowingly ignoring the fallacious and otherwise outright nonsensical claims made by "some" on your side of this debate, are you? Besides, I wouldn't judge the balance of the debate based on a few isolated data points.

I think might be an idea to recall, what the debate is about, to find the truth, right? Regardless of insults and fallacies. Now there could be a ***fill in your most devious enemy here*** , who makes the most filty allegations about the swindle of global warming but that is totally irrelevant, equally irrelevant as the doom and gloom of the alarmists.

The truth is out there and totally independent of who is making which insults and fallacies. But it's our inherent nature for survival I guess, that gets people confronting each other. There is one party believing that the end is nigh unless we take draconical measures and get right back to the stone age. Other people think that, if we take those measures the end will indeed be nigh because we do it ourselfs.

There is a simple physical hypothesis about global warming and there is a simple physical falsification thereoff here, for the unindoctrinated minds that is, independent of any view, mistake, data mining, scam, con, fallacy or insult.

What else do you need?

Also it may be perfectly right to cut fossil fuel use but not at the expense of the truth.

 

[Andre]

Another analysis of global warming.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070330_carter.pdf

For the authority fallacy: the author

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

39 pages, the executive summary:

HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING

McCarthyism, intimidation, press bias, censorship, policy-advice corruption and propaganda

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since 1988 - fuelled by insistent lobbying from special interest environmental, scientific, political and industry groups - human-caused global warming has become one of the great political issues of our time. Today’s dominant paradigm is that human emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, will produce dangerous warming of the globe (the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis; AGW). When tested against empirical evidence, this hypothesis fails. It maintains its popular sway only because of the remorseless propagation of climate alarmism based upon anecdotal evidence, and on unvalidated computer modeling (GCMs) and related “attribution studies”. This paper describes ways in which the AGW paradigm has achieved its consensus hold over western political consciousness, and explains how it maintains that status.

AGW supporters exercise strong influence over the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and also over what is published in the professional scientific literature about climate change. Climate rationalists (derogated as “skeptics”) who seek a balanced discussion on the issue, and greater recognition of the dominant role of natural climate change, are subject to harassment, intimidation and censorship. Policy advice to governments through scientific agencies and academies is corrupted by financial and political self-interest. Public discussion of climate change is greatly degraded by an unremitting press bias and by lavish NGO-funded propaganda towards alarmism in the AGW cause. With the publication of the British Stern Review into Climate Change in late 2006, and the scheduled release of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC in early 2007,

AGW alarmism is reaching unprecedented heights. The non-alarmist, rational interpretation of climate change will prevail through this hysteria, as empirical data come to trump unvalidated computer model predictions. Thereafter, attention will turn to the real climate policy problem. Which is the preparation of appropriate response plans for the occurrence of extreme weather events, as well as for longer term climatic coolings and warmings, in the same way that we prepare to cope with other natural hazards such as storms, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

Attempting to “stop climate change” is an extravagant and costly exercise of utter futility. Rational climate policies must be based on adaptation.

 

[drankin]

That says it all to me, Andre.

 

[BillJx]

PRed Journal publications:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html

Authority index: 98%, 98%, 98%, etc,

What says authority?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lindzen+global+warming&btnG=Search&meta=

Both your links lead to one authority who supports your position. I'd think you should be able to find several. If your arguments stood up to expert analysis you'd find hundreds. It's the scarcity of scientists who agree with you that makes your explanations seem so unlikely. After all, you're not arguing that the Earth is flat.

It's not at all difficult to find biologists and physicists who don't believe in evolution. But I'm convinced by the overwhelming majority who do.

 

[Art]

Both your links lead to one authority who supports your position. I'd think you should be able to find several. If your arguments stood up to expert analysis you'd find hundreds. It's the scarcity of scientists who agree with you that makes your explanations seem so unlikely. After all, you're not arguing that the Earth is flat.

It's not at all difficult to find biologists and physicists who don't believe in evolution. But I'm convinced by the overwhelming majority who do.

This argument of my army is bigger than your army reminds me of Einstein's reaction when asked what he thought about the petition of 200 scientists put together by the Nazi party declaring his work to be wrong. "Why so many? It only takes 1 to prove me wrong."

 

[BillJx]

This argument of my army is bigger than your army reminds me of when Einstein was asked what he thought about the petition of 200 scientists put together by the Nazi party declaring his work to be wrong. "Why so many? It only takes 1 to prove me wrong."

What's your point? That you think some modern-day tyrant is forcing the climatologists to say what they do? Or that you think the arguments against AGW constitute proof? If the former, we live in different realities. If the latter, I still don't understand why all those scientists can't understand the proof.

 

[Art]

What's your point? That you think some modern-day tyrant is forcing the climatologists to say what they do? Or that you think the arguments against AGW constitute proof? If the former, we live in different realities. If the latter, I still don't understand why all those scientists can't understand the proof.

My main point is that numbers of yaes and nays are in themselves meaningless. Science isn't a democracy so being in the majority does not in itself mean you are right. This is particularly true in such a highly politicised area such as global warming.

So far in this thread the main argument that has been made supporting AGW has been 'we have more supporters than the non-believers'.

There are 2 further lessons from the anecdote I used; the first is that it shows some scientists will 'go along to get along' and with billions of dollars of research funding up for grabs along with prestigious employment opportunities not to mention the numerous other vested interests one would have to be very naive to think this is not a factor.

And secondly rather than constant appeals to authority I personally would like an AGW supporter to explain clearly and concisely the proof behind the AGW theory instead of hiding behind majorities or reversing logic by putting the onus on skeptical folk to prove them wrong. Afterall I could theorise there is a huge dragon living in the next galaxy and then defy you to prove me wrong.

It's probably also worth noting that the AGW theory has so far failed every time it has been tested. It is amazing that a predictive theory still holds such sway despite the fact that each time it's predictions have been tested by emergent empirical data it has failed badly. For evidence of this simply compare each of the IPCC reports although they do seem to be learning. Their most recent predictions have such a wide range just about everything between snowball Earth and fireball Earth will fit within their prediction. Ok I'm exagerating just a tad

 

[Andre]

What's your point? That you think some modern-day tyrant is forcing the climatologists to say what they do? Or that you think the arguments against AGW constitute proof? If the former, we live in different realities. If the latter, I still don't understand why all those scientists can't understand the proof.

Ah great! finally proof. There is so much talking about proof, but everybody seems reluctant to present it. Please, by all means, be so kind and do show it.

 

[Andre]

What's your point? That you think some modern-day tyrant is forcing the climatologists to say what they do? .

No, this particular form of overheat is caused by a positive feedback loop, as elaborated upon here

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

 

[Skyhunter]

Perhaps from the knowledge you gleaned at these lectures you might be able to throw some light on the following?

OK Art I'll bite.

The current average temperature rise of .13 C per decade is the same now as it was in 1910 when reliable records began.

Duh!

The average would be the same at any point within the time period averaged.

The extra humidity through extra water vapor (the major greenhouse gas) has so far proven beneficial with the Sahara desert having shrunk by 300,000 Km2 in the past 20 years.

Are you suggesting here that AGW is real and a good thing?

The rate of increase in sea levels has remained fairly constant for the past 80 years and it is known that sea levels have been rising for 1000s of years. To be precise studies have shown that sea level rise (SLR) between 1920-1945 was 2.03 mm p.a. whereas between 1946 - 2003 SLR has been 1.45 mm p.a. so the rate of SLR is actually decreasing not increasing as the GW models predicted.

I would like to see your source for this since it is different from the what the AGU published in 2004.

With over a decade of precision sea level measurements from satellite altimetry in hand and with the recent launch of new satellite missions addressing different aspects of sea level change, observationally, we have more information on sea level change than ever before. In fact, the geocentric rate of global mean sea level rise over the last decade (1993–2003) is now known to be very accurate, +2.8 ± 0.4 mm/yr, as determined from TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason altimeter measurements, 3.1 mm/yr if the effects of postglacial rebound are removed. This rate is significantly larger than the historical rate of sea level change measured by tide gauges during the past decades (in the range of 1–2 mm/yr).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2003RG000139.shtml

And a more up to date graph of the data:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/sealevel_2.jpg

The total ice mass of the Earth has increased over the past 30 years with the ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland gaining 2" between 1993 - 2003 thus reversing a 6000 year old trend whereby the ice sheets steadily melted..

Source please.

According to the GRACE project, (considered the most accurate since it measures changes in mass, by measuring changes in gravity) both the Antarctic and Greenland are losing mass.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5803/1286

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060302180504.htm

I fear what you are doing here is confusing rate of new growth by increased snowfall (predicted by the climate models) with actual mass.

The Arctic was actually warmer by 1 C between 1925 and 1935 than it is today.

I can't find a source for this claim either, could you provide one please.

There is some debate, and rightly so about arctic temperature trends. There was some debate about the definition "Arctic", geographically, as well as which instrument stations were used.

From everything I saw, from 1880 on, shows a steady warming trend with a, warm spike, in the 30's and 40's, followed by a cooling trend but is now at approximately the same as the peak of the last spike.

Here is a better record that isn't subject to geographic station location arguments;

The scientists found that ecosystems in many of the lakes they sampled began to change about 150 years ago. At many sites, the predominant types of diatom abruptly shifted from sediment-dwelling species to those that thrive in open water. Simultaneously, populations of water fleas and algae-eating insect larvae increased.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050305/fob3.asp

More open water = less ice = warmer temperatures.

When I look at all the studies they all seem to concur that
There has been no nett change in global average rainfall for the past 100 years.

I am not sure where you are going here so I will skip this one.

There has been a steady decrease in hurricanes since 1970. In fact Dr. Landsea, a UN author, resigned when his lead author on a political platform announced (that is lied) that hurricanes had become more frequent.

Lead author on a political platform lied.

I didn't know that the Center for Health and Global Environment at Harvard Medical School was a political platform.


http://www.ucar.edu/news/record/transcripts/hurricanes102104.shtml is the transcript. I suggest you read it. Then perhaps you will offer up an apology to Dr Trenberth, since nowhere in the transcript does he state, or even suggest, that hurricanes had become more frequent due to global warming.

This is an excellent example of how the denialist propaganda machine infects the media and blogosphere. The claim was never made, Trenberth was not speaking for the IPCC, and at the time an MIT study demonstrating a correlation between SSTs and hurricane intensity had just been published.

For those interested here is the http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/science-impacts/katrinafolder/hurricanescience/emanuelpaper that I believe Trenberth was referencing when he spoke of warmer oceans affecting hurricanes.

Landsea, from reading his letter of resignation had for sometime been disgruntled and viewed press conferences as political. At some level I agree with him, there is always some overstatement or misinterpretation. However the Summary for Policy Makers is what Evo was talking about, communicating to the layperson. Policy makers are not scientists, and do not necessarily understand the science or even the scientific method. Policy makers are political creatures and therefore it is impossible to remove the politics from the science when preparing a summary for politicians.

When I began studying the debate, I had a very hard time finding the basis of most denialist claims. Mainly because like this claim Art, the actual claim had little to do with it's source.

Thanks to Andre and his familiarity with the anti-GW argument, I have been able to look closely at both sides.

The temperatures the UN uses to calculate average global temperatures are obtained from readings taken near expanding towns and cities which makes the data victim to the heat island effect which is potentially serious as it is possible that the Earth is actually cooling not warming.

Except for pointing out the the UN only sponsors the work, they don't actually do any of it. The work is actually done by 1500 scientists from around the world who volunteer...

I will wait until you provide a credible source for this claim to StuMyers.

In some places during the middle-ages the average temperatures were 3 C higher than they are today. In fact the available records from the time which are incomplete suggest this increase applied globally.

To vague here I don't know what places or records you are referring to.

During the Cambrian period CO2 levels were 7000 ppm compared to 350 ppm today and yet average global temperatures were lower then than now.

Don't see how this is relevant. Is there some point I am missing?

There is little similarity between the world's climate and eco systems half a billion years ago and the conditions that exist today.

The mean global temperature of this the current interglacial period is 2C less than previous interglacial periods whilst CO2 content is 100 ppm higher.

I fail to see how this is an argument for or against AGW.

The last interglacial is of great interest to climate scientists right now because it is the last time that the climate was known to be warmer than it is today. Learning more about the conditions then are important for understanding what to expect from the current warming.

The USGS has current project ongoing, right now. http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/lite/

Take a look at this http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/lite/fig1.gif of CO<sub>2 from the last 175,000 years. You have to look closely on the far left border to see that 100ppm jump. there are 3 dots on the zero line.

The last interglacial was warmer than today without the 100ppm spike that we have just injected into the system over a very short time span.

The rest of your post was mostly an incoherant rant about conspiracies for grant money etc. and not really relevant, I am surprised that mod's let you go on so without any citations.</sub>

 

[Art]

Skyhunter I'll respond to the rest of your post when I have more time although most of these claims are covered by the references I supplied on request and I have already twice explained my reason for posting a simple listing which you would know if you were following the thread but anyway here's something for you to chew on in the meanwhile. It's an extract from an open letter Chris Landsea published;

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity"
snip
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
snip
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Full text here - http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/p...olicy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
Seeing as how you claim to have read this letter prior to posting I can only presume you were deliberately trying to mislead other readers. I am surprised that mod's let you do this. Now I think you owe other readers and me me an apology.

 

[Evo]

Seeing as how you claim to have read this letter prior to posting I can only presume you were deliberately trying to mislead other readers. I am surprised that mod's let you do this Now I think you owe me an apology.

I don't think anyone is intentionally trying to mislead anyone. I'd like the members that have been accusing each other of such in this thread (and there have been some pretty nasty & unnecessary comments made by both sides) to stop and realize that we have different studies and different interpretations of same studies. When even the experts disagree on what the findings mean, this is not surprising.

I think it's useful to discuss these.

Some of the information Art cited was in a NY Times article I linked to, and some are in the Earth forum.

Art, I really need you to find links or citations for the information. It's hard to discuss without seeing the entire paper or article.

This thread needs some major pruning which I'm hoping to have time to do soon. If you see things start to disappear or get edited, you know I'm trying to condense the posts so that we have an on topic flow of facts on both sides and cut out a lot off topic fluff.

 

[Art]

Oh and here's another quicky

Originally Posted by Art

The current average temperature rise of .13 C per decade is the same now as it was in 1910 when reliable records began.

Skyhunter Duh!

The average would be the same at any point within the time period averaged.

Over the series yes but did you notice the per decade part?

edit Apologies Evo, my remark was intended as a pun on these comments from Skyhunter .

Then perhaps you will offer up an apology to Dr Trenberth
I am surprised that mod's let you do this

 

[BillJx]

No, this particular form of overheat is caused by a positive feedback loop, as elaborated upon here

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

I have a hard time understanding this kind of entrenched belief Andre. You're obviously an intelligent man. But you had an extended online discussion with several scientists at the Natural Environment Research Council, where you presented your arguments and they tried to help you to understand where you were going wrong.
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp

You either didn't understand or didn't want to accept their explanations, but you post the work of a retired sailor who agrees with you.

 

[Evo]

But you had an extended online discussion with several scientists at the Natural Environment Research Council, where you presented your arguments and they tried to defend their positions.

My correction there after having read a number of the posts. In other words BillJx, don't make claims which are personal opinion and in this case is a borderline personal attack. Seems they had to agree with Andre more than half the time and then come back with, well of course no one knows for sure...but we believe our models are correct as far as our ability currently allows.

We have been clear in our replies that we accept that there is still uncertainty in some areas of the science that we need to reduce. The lack of complete understanding about some aspects of the climate system does not mean that there is uncertainty in whether there will be increase in global temperature caused by greenhouse gases. It means, however, that the local consequences of climate change are not certain. The future amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere from human emissions, causes most uncertainty in the magnitude of climate change in predictions for the next century. Scientists are constantly working to further understand the climate system, and reduce the uncertainties.

In other words, we can agree that human emmisions are contributing to natural warming, but we don't know how much (because we can only guess based on past warming periods) and we can only guess if or what significance that has in climate change.

 

[Skyhunter]

Evo I was not suggesting that Art was intentionally trying to mislead. I believe however that he had been intentionally misled.

Art said:

lead author on a political platform announced (that is lied) that hurricanes had become more frequent.

Trenberth never said hurricanes had become more frequent. The denialist sites and the corporate media reported that he had made the connection. Read the transcript (linked in my last post) and you will see that Trenberth never said such a thing.

The second assertion is that he was speaking for the IPCC which he was not. He identified himself as Keven Trenberth from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

In his introduction he stated that he was also lead author for the 2001 IPCC report. But before almost every other statement he made clear that his main association was with NCAR. To attribute his comments to the IPCC is disingenuous

Art, the news conference was entitled; Hurricanes and Global Warming. I read Landsea's open letter, I don't find it to be particularly unusual. Trenberth was giving a press conference, and was citing a very recent study that was not yet fully accepted, at least not by Landsea. This was not the only occasion that Landsea objected to what he considered to be political overtones to the science.

Big deal. One disgruntled employee doesn't necessarily make a bad employer.

I don't know anymore than what I have read in his open letter. I have seen no statements from his former or present colleagues regarding his allegations.

I don't believe it was this one instance that caused Landsea to feel he needed to resign. I suspect he had other issues as well.

Actually I do agree with him to a certain degree. It was right after a record setting hurricane season that brought us Katrina. The conference was in response to public concern/interest in hurricanes. Anything that was said, that might be associated even indirectly with the fourth assessment would be misinterpreted. Which was exactly the result.

Dr. Trenberth was referencing the Emanuel study (link in my post) that shows a correlation between sea surface temperatures and hurricane intensity and duration, not hurricane frequency! Yet again and again I see the same argument that hurricane frequency hasn't increased and they lied. It just is not the case. Any one reading, and understanding the transcript can plainly see that he never made such a claim.

What he said was:

What we can say is that the high sea surface temperatures of water vapor make for more intense storms and so this is consistent with the evidence that we're seeing. And so this is the main link with global warming that we can establish at the current time.

And it was an obvious reference to the Emanuel study. A newly published study that Landsea had not yet vetted.

 

[Evo]

Evo I was not suggesting that Art was intentionally trying to mislead. I believe however that he had been intentionally misled.

I know, I was admonishing Art for suggesting that you were intentionally misleading.

 

[Skyhunter]

In other words, we can agree that human emmisions are contributing to natural warming, but we don't know how much (because we can only guess based on past warming periods) and we can only guess if or what significance that has in climate change.

Your right Evo. We can only guess. We don't know the outcome, and therefore should not conduct such an experiment with the only habitable planet in our solar system ATM!

The warm period scientists are looking toward for clues as to what to expect is the beginning of the last interglacial 120,000 years ago. It was much warmer, sea levels were much higher, we are currently in roughly the same stage in the present interglacial as the last interglacial sensu stricto. We are in for a warming and then a long period 50k plus years of interglacial climate before the onset of the next ice age.

This time around we there is an extra 100ppm of CO₂ from the carboniferous era that we have added to the atmosphere. I just think we should stop before some foreseen, or unforeseen consequence befalls our world.

 

[BillJx]

My correction there after having read a number of the posts. In other words BillJx, don't make claims which are personal opinion and in this case is a borderline personal attack.

Is this post of yours not personal opinion? It's close to being defamatory.
" The fact that a lot of scientists have caught onto the fact that they can get more grant money and secure their jobs by "jumping on the bandwagon" does not mean they even actually believe in it."


Nevertheless, I apologize to Andre if the tone of my comments offended him, and I can see how the last part of my post could have. Andre, I respect your intellegence and independance of thought, I just happen to believe that you are staying with an entrenched idea well past its useful life.

I stand by my original wording of the first part of my post. I did read all of the discussions between Andre and the NERC scientists and didn't get the impression that they were being defensive. Our differing interpretations may come from our own biases. My bias is that when the vast majority of professional scientists in a specialized field agree on something, it's almost inconcievable that they will feel the need to be defensive about their findings.

 

[Andre]

...
Nevertheless, I apologize to Andre if the tone of my comments offended him, and I can see how the last part of my post could have.

It's oke.

I just happen to believe that you are staying with an entrenched idea well past its useful life...I did read all of the discussions between Andre and the NERC scientists and didn't get the impression that they were being defensive. Our differing interpretations may come from our own biases.

If you indeed have read the complete NERC discussions and my PDF's it may show that there are few publications concerning the Quartenary paleoclimatology that I have not read (and how it surprized the 'authorities' who should have read them). Just because it wanted to solve the extinction of the mammoth and I had a lot of not published inside information due to my friendship with http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/290/5499/2062, with the red body warmer on the left here:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/fishingformammoths.jpg

The picture is about catching fish and mammoth bones in the North Sea with the little trawler on the background. I'm on the right.

Anyway, it was abundantly clear from paleonthologic and other paleobiologic evidence that the current paradigms about climate are plain wrong. Two completely different worlds, symbolized in the case of Andre versus the NERC. Well, when the discusser is also the referee, guess what you'll read in the wrap up. I knew from the onset that this outcome would be inevitable Also the reason that none of the established skeptics accepted the challenge. But at least some intelligent people can judge the case.

But it is very tough to digest that if ones efforts get one against the mainstream inevitably leading to the paria position. So if you are "against climate" (climate denier), then you are automatically a hoodlum. Well, so be it, I guess. Finding out whodunnit is more important.

My bias is that when the vast majority of professional scientists in a specialized field agree on something, it's almost inconcievable that they will feel the need to be defensive about their findings.

...which was predicted in great detail by Thomas Kuhn

http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html

From where I'm looking, I can tick off just about every bullet in the list for global warming, especially chapter VII-VIII.

Finally, my bias is going with Karl Popper and Thomas Huxley (the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis with an ugly fact). It needs only one of such facts for the whole thing to be falsified.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162192

Why is nobody opposing this? There must be dozens of physisists here thorougly familiar with response characteristics of positive feedback systems?

But as Kuhn postulates, it needs a lot more than falsification to abandon a leading paradigm.

 

[Evo]

Your right Evo. We can only guess. We don't know the outcome, and therefore should not conduct such an experiment with the only habitable planet in our solar system ATM!

The warm period scientists are looking toward for clues as to what to expect is the beginning of the last interglacial 120,000 years ago. It was much warmer, sea levels were much higher, we are currently in roughly the same stage in the present interglacial as the last interglacial sensu stricto. We are in for a warming and then a long period 50k plus years of interglacial climate before the onset of the next ice age.

This time around we there is an extra 100ppm of CO₂ from the carboniferous era that we have added to the atmosphere. I just think we should stop before some foreseen, or unforeseen consequence befalls our world.

Did you read the UN's report on the cattle industry? They suggest ways that an immediate, significant decrease in greenhouse gasses could be accomplished, yet no politicians seem to have jumped on the bandwagon.

I'd be interested in what your thoughts are on this.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2723201&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

 

[Skyhunter]

Speaking of mis-representation...

I read the link on CFC's Evo. Because of how it is written it suggests that the replacement HFC'S and HCFC's are worse than CFC's as GHG's. The Montreal protocol only addressed half the problem, Ozone depletion, and did nothing to limit GHG's.

You probably missed this sentence/paragraph when you read the article Evo.

Use of HCFCs and HFCs is projected to add the equivalent of 2 billion to 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere by 2015, U.N. climate experts said in a recent report. The CFCs they replace also would have added that much.

I completely agree with your point though about knee-jerk reactions. Although at the time AGW and climate change were not an issue with most people.

I think carbon sequestration is a knee-jerk reaction.

I am focused on rebuilding city infrastructure. Re-designing and developing our cities to be pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Practically the only commons left of our commonwealth has been reserved for automobiles. Here in Berkeley, because of the tireless efforts of advocates, we have a rather bicycle friendly city, that it is getting better all the time.

So I say infill not sprawl, design communities so that most goods and services are available locally, upgrade public transit so that it is convenient, inexpensive, (or free) and less time consuming than driving. And of course, all this design and construction should be undertaken with LEED platinum certification as a goal.

What I am most concerned about here is water. Our water is stored in the snow of the Sierras. with warmer winters, we are seeing less snow pack. I am doing neighborhood assessments of buildings with rooftops that could possibly be utilized as vegetable gardens. All rooftops however are a tremendous resource, even pitched roofs can become living roofs that will retain 90% of the rainfall that hits them. The excess is filtered and cooled before it ends up in newly day-lighted urban creeks.

I put a lot of time and effort into studying the problem before deciding;

a) it is a problem,

b) how best to use my skills to help solve it.

Andre was very helpful with my education, I may not agree with him but we need people like him to keep questioning the status quo. Otherwise we are apt to suffer the consequences of knee-jerk reactions, or half thought out solutions that do not address the entire range of problems associated with not only global warming, but the other myriad problems associated with a mass consumption society.

At present I see no really viable alternative energy that can maintain the current rate of consumption. Yes, we need to replace our energy sources with sustainable ones. However, at the current and projected rates of consumption, there is no sustainable source. We must reduce our consumption to where it becomes manageable. The key to that new efficiency is cities. Cities consume more energy than rural areas, but have a far lower per capita rate of consumption. This is why mayors are more important than presidents when it comes to addressing the crucial underlying problems with the infrastructure of our cities.

We can make cities much more efficient, and far more livable than they are today.

How?

Re-design them for people, not automobiles.

 

[Evo]

Speaking of mis-representation...

I read the link on CFC's Evo. Because of how it is written it suggests that the replacement HFC'S and HCFC's are worse than CFC's as GHG's. The Montreal protocol only addressed half the problem, Ozone depletion, and did nothing to limit GHG's.

You probably missed this sentence/paragraph when you read the article Evo.

No, I think you missed the preceeding paragraph -

But, like CFCs, they are considered potent greenhouse gases that harm the climate -- up to 10,000 times worse than carbon dioxide emissions.

 

[Skyhunter]

Did you read the UN's report on the cattle industry? They suggest ways that an immediate, significant decrease in greenhouse gasses could be accomplished, yet no politicians seem to have jumped on the bandwagon.

I'd be interested in what your thoughts are on this.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2723201&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Environmental issues were/are very much a part of my decision to live a vegan lifestyle. I was aware of this as an environmental issue long before the U.N. report.

Ever seen http://www.petaliterature.com/VEG200.pdf on a t-shirt?

Even though it is a red-herring, the accusation against Al Gore and his lifestyle is spot on. Not very Ghandiesque of him. If he adopted a vegan diet and lifestyle, it would also end all the fat comments directed at him.

It is very difficult for individuals, let alone societies to accept anything outside of their experience. The idea that I could live without eating animal protein was a ridiculous proposition IMO for most of my life. My simple reasoning was that animals were made of the same stuff we are so therefore meat had everything we need for nutrition.

Once I experienced the physical transformation my body made when I adopted a vegan diet, I realized I had many hundreds if not thousands of assumptions about my lifestyle without any critical thought at all.

I was very fortunate because I live in America, and have become a sophisticated consumer of information with access to a free internet. I was able to educate myself, not only about nutrition, but the bigger picture; the necessary adoption of a plant based diet by humans.

This is a very important point:

Humans did not evolve eating meat, we evolved the ability to eat meat.
If we had not evolved the ability, much of our present genome would have been extinguished during the glacial cycles. But we are still optimized for a plant based diet, and unless we want to perpetuate the status quo, we should all examine our big bellies, love handles, and thunder thighs; then decide whether or not a vegan diet is a practical alternative and not just a knee-jerk reaction.

I understand why politicians don't want to promote a plant based diet. It would be political suicide, even Dennis Kucinich who is vegan, has not to my knowledge offered any legislation outlawing cattle. Look at what happened to Senator George McGovern. He oversaw a congressional study that recommended that Americans eat less meat. The meat industry managed to get less meat changed to less fat in a compromise. Then they heavily funded his opponent in the next election, which he subsequently lost. That was the end of George McGovern politically.

Being active in the green movement I meet many green advocates that eat animals.

When they ask me why I am vegan?

I tell them:

"Because I am an environmentalist." or

"A meat eating environmentalist is an oxymoron." or

"Meat eating environmentalists are just posers, standing behind a painted screen with just their face showing through the opening...posing for a picture."

The usually back off quick about questioning my choice of lifestyle.

I decided that my building and construction skills were better utilized in rebuilding our infrastructure. So I didn't join some crusade to convert the world to a vegan diet, although I support the movement. I have always loved rooftops so rooftop gardens and urban watershed renewal are my current passions. But I still do not miss an opportunity to enlighten someone about the myriad benefits they and the world, will experience when they adopt a vegan lifestyle.

There are a number of Knee-Jerk reactions to the problem popping up already.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1521253.htm

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2040615,00.html

 

[Skyhunter]

No, I think you missed the preceeding paragraph -

But, like CFCs, they are considered potent greenhouse gases that harm the climate -- up to 10,000 times worse than carbon dioxide emissions.

Like CFC's.

I was pointing out that they are no worse than CFC's with regard to GHG emissions. The Montreal protocol only addressed part of the problem, ozone depletion. It had no effect on GHG emisions, positive or negative.

 

[drankin]

I have a protien appetite that only animal flesh can satisfy. From what I've read the diet of cattle is a large factor in emissions. If livestock are such a large factor then this may be a relatively easy thing to address. Relative to other emission contributors. I'm all for humans doing what is responsible to keep the environment clean. I'm just not convinced that we are going to make a dent in our planets heating and cooling cycles. And I seriously doubt the future doom and gloom that is preached in the media right now.

 

[Skyhunter]

I have a protien appetite that only animal flesh can satisfy. From what I've read the diet of cattle is a large factor in emissions. If livestock are such a large factor then this may be a relatively easy thing to address. Relative to other emission contributors. I'm all for humans doing what is responsible to keep the environment clean. I'm just not convinced that we are going to make a dent in our planets heating and cooling cycles. And I seriously doubt the future doom and gloom that is preached in the media right now.

At least you are honest and call it an appetite instead of a dietary requirement.

Human intestines are long and irregular, designed to digest high fiber foods. There are symbiotic bacteria that live in our intestines. These bacteria feed on non soluble fiber that should be a natural part of our diet. There is 0% fiber in animal protein.

I don't see doom and gloom in the media, but then, I rarely watch television, and even less rarely do I watch commercial media.

In simple terms the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report for Policy Makers says;

The world is warming, (95%) and humans are probably (90%) responsible.

 

[drankin]

Off topic but, yeah, it is an appetite not a requirement. I can stuff myself on vegies and pasta, what-have-you, and still feel a sense of hunger. I imagine if I went all vegies it would go away over time but the meanwhile would be torture for me.

I can't argue with folks that specialize in this stuff but I do believe our climate is always going to be changing regardless if we are roaming the planet or not and no matter how it changes there are those that are going to say it's changing for the worse and that it's our fault. Even if we are contributing to the changes to some degree, the planet will accommodate us and we will accommodate it without mass extinctions, famine, and whatever else.

The only way to take us out of the equation is to literally take us out of the equation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

..."Today the nation's highest court has set the White House straight. Carbon dioxide is an air pollutant, and the Clean Air Act gives EPA the power to start cutting the pollution from new vehicles that is wreaking havoc with our climate," said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council. [continued]

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-04-02T193852Z_01_WBT006757_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-USA-WARMING-COURT-COL.XML

QED